[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
ua9cdc at gmail.com
Thu Oct 6 01:03:42 EDT 2016
I fully agree with your statement Ron. I do not defend RDXC acting I just
want our discussion to turm into what can be done to stop power cheating.
73, Igor UA9CDC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
> With all due respect, IMHO, fighting alleged "cheating" by not contacting
> the accused, asking him for his side of the story, and worse, simply flat
> out telling him he's a cheater with no allowance for other variables or
> giving him any option to plead his case or appeal... is as bad or even
> worse than someone turning their amp on and claiming that they didn't.
> To put it bluntly: If you're going to accuse someone of as serious an
> ethical lapse as cheating, you have to give than an opportunity to defend
> themselves. You can't be judge, jury and executioner.
> And yes, I speak from experience. I once did just that in a local contest
> I was involved in, many years ago. While I don't believe, then or now,
> that I was wrong, I did get my fingers singed for not giving the alleged
> perpetrator an opportunity to explain himself. It was embarrassing to say
> the least, but I have no one to blame for my error (in how I handled the
> situation) than myself.
> So in this case, I do not say that the RDXC committee is wrong... or is
> right. I do say that before reclassifying or disqualifying a log entry,
> they at least owe the alleged a chance to explain or defend himself.
> 73, ron w3wn
> On 10/05/16, Igor Sokolov wrote:
> Hi Kelly,
> I am not arguing with every acknowledged expert on this forum. I am just
> trying to summon these experts to suggest the method of fighting power
> cheating. Are there tools other then RBN to hunt cheaters? Can RBN be used
> in conjunction with other tools (whatever) to get reliable results? If
> are no methods of control then why do we have power categories that lend
> themselves for cheating?
> Do we want to fight power cheating or do we want to let cheaters carry on?
> These are more important questions in my opinion then whether or not some
> contest sponsor were unfair to some participants.
> BTW P3F was not the only one who was reclassified to higher power
> I am not suggesting we use HIS case. I am suggesting we use this
> to discuss how power cheating can be dealt with.
> You say "To establish RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining
> cheating — were it even possible — would require extensive, controlled
> experimentation" which I read - "we do not have reliable means of
> determining power cheating yet". Does it mean we give up and let it
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
> Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
> Hi Igor,
> As every acknowledged expert on this forum has pointed out, so many
> variables contribute to differences in signal strength that pinpointing a
> power difference as the sole cause, based only on simplistic RBN analysis,
> is absurd.
> Using an absurd approach in the absence of one that isn’t is beyond
> ludicrous. It is patently unfair.
> That the RDXC won’t respond, that it apparently moved the goalposts every
> time it was challenged (from constant power cheating on all bands to
> cheating only on some bands to cheating only on some bands for periods
> and there) certainly suggests there’s more to this than a simple
> misunderstanding of data.
> It’s like the Salem witch hunt, where officials would drown suspected
> witches: if you lived, you were a witch. If you died, congratulations, you
> weren’t a witch, but sorry about that whole ‘death' thing.
> To use P3F as a test case is as absurd as the drowning test. To establish
> RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining power cheating — were it
> even possible — would require extensive, controlled experimentation, not
> persecution of one amateur.
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am saying that we should treat this case as a possibility to work out
>> universally accepted methods of pinpointing power violators. That is if
>> want to keep power categories separate. And that is if we want to stop
>> proliferation of cheating. RDXC made an attempt. Some people found their
>> approach to be incorrect but nobody yet suggested no alternative.
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
>> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
>> Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>> Are you saying that just because we have not come up with a proven means
>> to determine power cheating, we should merely accept the results of an
>> irrefutably flawed analysis?
>> Even the chief promoter and grand poobah of RBN technology has stated
>> using RBN analysis to determine power cheating is absurd.
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am not going to be on any side of the argument. But we all know that
>>> power cheating exists and proliferates. It has become especially acute
>>> after the introduction of the new WRTC selection rules which allowed LP
>>> category compete against HP for the slot in WRTC.
>>> IMHO RDXC should be commended for pioneering the battle against power
>>> violations even though their attempt is not fully approved by some.
>>> RDXC can be criticized for their approach but can critics offer other
>>> reliable methods of fishing out power violators. I do not think that a
>>> 100% reliable method exists.
>>> Does it mean that contest community should not pay attention to power
>>> violations? I do not think so. Otherwise, why have different power
>>> categories in the rules when these rules cannot be enforced.
>>> The simple solution would be to drop separation by power and have all
>>> participants compete in one power category. But would such a radical
>>> step be to the benefit of the contest community? Would it increase
>>> participation? I think not.
>>> Then why don't we as a community use this precedent and try to find a
>>> solution? Let's work out methods of verification of power cheating that
>>> would be acceptable by a majority of the participants. This will be to
>>> the benefit of all the contest sponsors where power categories exist.
>>> Disclaimer: I have no relation to RDXC committee and not competing for
>>> slot in WRTC. I just like the art contesting and want make better.
>>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest